Integrated establishment principle bars separate provident fund code where branches form one covered unit.

A separate provident fund code could not be allotted to a unit that formed part of one integrated establishment already covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Court read Section 2A to treat departments or branches of the same establishment, whether in the same or different places, as one establishment, and noted that the Scheme contemplated common disclosure and aggregation of branch-wise particulars and contributions. On that basis, the separate code allocation for the Tungidighi unit was unsustainable, and the consequential steps were set aside, while the authorities retained power to proceed with assessment and recovery of any outstanding statutory dues in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a separate provident fund code could be allotted to the Tungidighi unit of the petitioners despite the earlier coverage of the parent establishment, and whether the consequent steps taken on that basis were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 1(3)(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 makes the Act applicable to factories engaged in scheduled industries employing the requisite number of persons. Section 2A clarifies that where an establishment consists of different departments or branches, whether in the same place or different places, they are to be treated as part of the same establishment. On the facts, the Tungidighi unit was part of the same integrated establishment, and the Scheme also contemplated common disclosure and aggregation of branch-wise particulars and contributions. The existence of a separate code for the unit was therefore inconsistent with the statutory scheme governing a composite establishment.

Conclusion: The allotment of a separate code to the Tungidighi unit was unsustainable, and the consequential steps taken on that basis were set aside. The Court did not enter into the merits of the Section 7A determination, leaving the authorities free to proceed in accordance with law for any outstanding statutory liability.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the limited extent that the separate code allocation and its consequences were quashed, while the authorities' power to assess and recover any legally payable dues of the unit was preserved.

Ratio Decidendi: For an establishment covered by the Act, branch or unit-wise separation cannot be insisted upon when the units form part of one integrated establishment within the meaning of Section 2A.

---